Lecture 13 Oct. 17, 2018

interest analysis

true conflicts

false conflicts

finding false conflicts…

conduct regulating loss allocating

assume… conduct causes a loss there is a tort rule concerning it

conduct regulating & creates liability… purpose is to deter conduct that caused loss scope: jurisdiction where conduct occurred or where loss occurred

conduct regulating & blocks liability… purpose is to permit conduct that caused loss scope: jurisdiction where conduct occurred

loss-allocating

two types 1) really about appropriate compensation 2) about encouraging or discouraging some other conduct that the conduct that caused the loss

really loss allocating and creates liability purpose is making plaintiff whole scope: domicile of plaintiff maybe where relationship between P and D is centered

solely really loss allocating and creates liability (not also conduct regulating) it is admitted that what defendant did is not wrong but have liability anyway

really loss allocating and blocks or limits liability purpose is protecting defendant against unjustified claims scope: domicile of defendant maybe where relationship between P and D is centered

solely really loss allocating and blocks liability it is admitted that what defendant did is wrong but block liability anyway

indirect conduct regulating and blocks liability admitted that what the defendant did is wrongful but liability is blocked anyway to encourage or discourage conduct scope: variable… discourages conduct: where consequences of conduct to discourage will be felt encourages conduct: location of conduct, domicile of those who would benefit from conduct?

Schultz v Boy Scouts of America (NY 1985)

what is the cause of action. respondeat superior what is the cause of action? respondeat superior? or negligent hiring and supervision?

what about public policy exception…?

P.V. ex rel. T.V. v. Camp Jaycee (NJ 2007)

start with Boy Scouts

where did their wrongful conduct occur?

where did the harm occur?

what is its domicile? when?

purpose of NJ charitable immunity rule?

encouraging charitable activities

does the common domicile of P or D matter given those purposes?

- assume the Schultz’s are domiciled in NY - the Boy Scouts are domiciled in TX - but the scout camp is always in NJ, where the molestation and negligence occur

- assume the Schultz’s and Boy Scouts are domiciled in NJ - but the scout camp is always in NY, where the molestation and negligence occur

don’t bite the hand that feeds you

what time of domicile matters for scope given this purpose?

why doesn’t New York law also apply?

The three reasons most often urged in support of applying the law of the forum-locus in cases such as this are: (1) to protect medical creditors who provided services to injured parties in the locus State, (2) to prevent injured tort victims from becoming public wards in the locus State and (3) the deterrent effect application of locus law has on future tort-feasors in the locus State.

The first two reasons share common weaknesses The first two reasons share common weaknesses. First, in the abstract, neither reason necessarily requires application of the locus jurisdiction's law, but rather invariably mandates application of the law of the jurisdiction that would either allow recovery or allow the greater recovery. They are subject to criticism, therefore, as being biased in favor of recovery.

Finally, although it is conceivable that application of New York's law in this case would have some deterrent effect on future tortious conduct in this State, New York's deterrent interest is considerably less because none of the parties is a resident and the rule in conflict is loss-allocating rather than conduct- regulating.

Kell v. Henderson (N. Y. Sup. Ct Kell v. Henderson (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1965) Residents of Ontario Trip begins and ends in Ontario Accident in NY Court applied NY law, not Ontario guest statute

Dissent: [T]here can be little doubt that New York has an interest in insuring that justice be done to nonresidents who have come to this State and suffered serious injuries herein. There is no cogent reason to deem that interest any weaker whether such guests are here for the purpose of conducting business or personal affairs, or, as in this case, have chosen to spend their vacation in New York. Likewise, it cannot be denied that this State has a strong legitimate interest in deterring serious tortious misconduct, including the kind of reprehensible malfeasance that has victimized the nonresident infant plaintiffs in this case.

assume it is a true conflict who has the stronger interest?

Franciscan Bros.

domicile? place of wrongdoing? place of harm?

“As to defendant Franciscan Brothers, this action requires an application of the third of the rules set forth in Neumeier because the parties are domiciled in different jurisdictions with conflicting loss-distribution rules and the locus of the tort is New York, a separate jurisdiction. In that situation the law of the place of the tort will normally apply, unless displacing it ‘”will advance” the relevant substantive law purposes without impairing the smooth working of the multi-state system or producing great uncertainty for litigants’”

For the same reasons stated in our analysis of the action against defendant Boy Scouts, application of the law of New Jersey in plaintiffs' action against defendant Franciscan Brothers would further that State's interest in enforcing the decision of its domiciliaries to accept the burdens as well as the benefits of that State's loss-distribution tort rules and its interest in promoting the continuation and expansion of defendant's charitable activities in that State.

Conversely, although application of New Jersey's law may not affirmatively advance the substantive law purposes of New York, it will not frustrate those interests because New York has no significant interest in applying its own law to this dispute.

Finally, application of New Jersey law will enhance "the smooth working of the multi-state system" by actually reducing the incentive for forum shopping and it will provide certainty for the litigants whose only reasonable expectation surely would have been that the law of the jurisdiction where plaintiffs are domiciled and defendant sends its teachers would apply, not the law of New York where the parties had only isolated and infrequent contacts as a result of Coakeley's position as Boy Scout leader.

“unprovided-for” cases

Grant variation Arizonan and Californian get in accident in Arizona Californian dies Arizonan sues Californian’s estate AZ has no survivorship of actions Cal does

Neumeier Ontario guest riding in NYer’s car accident in Ontario Ontario has guest statute NY doesn’t

unprovided-for case: P’s domicile’s loss-allocating law benefits D (by prohibiting action) D’s domicile’s loss-allocating law benefits P (by allowing action) wrongdoing is in P’s domicile, which has no conduct regulating interest

Currie: use law that is most humane and enlightened use forum law

Erwin v. Thomas (Or. 1973)

Erwin v. Thomas (Or. 1973) - P (Wash) suing D (Ore) in Ore Ct for injury in Wash - suit is for loss of consortium - Wash does not allow such suits by women (only men) - Ore does

“Washington has decided that the rights of a married woman whose husband is injured are not sufficiently important to cause the negligent defendant who is responsible for the injury to pay the wife for her loss. It has weighed the matter in favor of protection of defendants. No Washington defendant is going to have to respond for damages in the present case, since the defendant is an Oregonian.”

“On the other hand, what is Oregon's interest “On the other hand, what is Oregon's interest? Oregon, obviously, is protective of the rights of married women and believes that they should be allowed to recover for negligently inflicted loss of consortium. However, it is stretching the imagination more than a trifle to conceive that the Oregon Legislature was concerned about the rights of all the nonresident married women in the nation whose husbands would be injured outside of the state of Oregon.”

Casey v Mason (Ore. 1967) Ore wife brings loss of consortium action against Wash D for accident in Wash Wash law applied

what is the real purpose of WA law what is the real purpose of WA law? is it really to protect Ds (and so Wash Ds)?

OR married woman sues WA D for loss of consortium concerning accident in OR true conflict or false one?

Erwin is a special case…

unprovided-for variation on Hurtado (Cal unprovided-for variation on Hurtado (Cal. 1974) - Ps from Mexican state of Zacatecas sue Californian for wrongful death due to an accident in Zacatecas - Zacatecan law had a limit on the amount of damages for wrongful death (part of the cause of action, not an affirmative defense) - California law had no such limit - interests for recovery above the limit?

get rid of pro-domiciliary approach to loss-allocating rules?

Kramer’s solution…there is no unprovided-for case

two type of unprovided-for cases is law blocking liability an affirmative defense or simply the absence of a cause of action…?

return to affirmative defense unprovided-for cases…

Neumeier Ontario guest riding in NYer’s car accident in Ontario Ontario has guest statute NY doesn’t

Kramer’s solution - affirmative defense of P’s domicile does not apply - but cause of action for relief of P’s domicile does apply

shouldn’t repeals also be read in the light of their purposes shouldn’t repeals also be read in the light of their purposes? assume NY had a guest statute but repealed it would the repeal apply to Neumeier? Ont P-guest NY D-host accident in Ont

Ontario guest riding in Michigander’s car accident in Ontario Ontario has guest statute Michigan does too! Ontario negligence law minus guest statute applies Michigan’s guest statute applies

like Neumeier… Ontario guest riding in NYer’s car accident in Ontario NY has liability of host to guest except… Ontario has made absence of guest/host relationship an element of the cause of action rather than an affirmative defense

real issue is what law would Ontario want for Neumeier?

but what law would NY want for Neumeier. compensatory interest but what law would NY want for Neumeier? compensatory interest? – no deterrence interest? – no worries about fraud? – yes!

NY – negligence liability Comp. NY (2) + Deter NY – negligence liability Comp.NY (2) + Deter.NY (4) > FraudNY (5) Ont – guest statute Comp.Ont (3) + Deter.Ont (1) < FraudOnt (5) Neumeier NY - FraudNY (5) Ont - Comp.Ont (3) + Deter.Ont (1) best rule – Comp.Ont (3) + Deter.Ont (1) < FraudNY (5)

NY – negligence liability Comp. NY (2) + Deter NY – negligence liability Comp.NY (2) + Deter.NY (4) > FraudNY (5) Ont – guest statute Comp.Ont (3) + Deter.Ont (1) < FraudOnt (5) Babcock NY P-guest NY D-host Ont accident NY - Comp.NY (2) < FraudNY (5) Ont - Deter.Ont (1) best rule: Comp.NY (2) + Deter.Ont (1) < FraudNY (5)